New Book On Oswald By Paul Gregory.

[Joe Bauer]

Link from Robert Morrow.

Web link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ595whXpdE

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

People on this board are already dismissing Paul Gregory because of his professional background, which is absurd. To my ears, this is a very compelling interview that provides a lot of insight into Oswald's personality, as well as his unsuitability for being part of any kind of plot or conspiracy with others.

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

People on this board are already dismissing Paul Gregory because of his professional background, which is absurd. To my ears, this is a very compelling interview that provides a lot of insight into Oswald's personality, as well as his unsuitability for being part of any kind of plot or conspiracy with others.

Well...

The author, Paul R. Gregory, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, knew LHO for less than four months, and depicts an unhappy couple, and LHO as a disagreeable character. 

"From June through mid-September of 1962, I was the sole companion of Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald outside of Lee’s immediate family. I visited this young married couple often in the duplex where they settled after Lee’s return from his defection to the USSR."

LHO behaved poorly towards Marina, recounts Gregory, and Gregory soon left the couple's acquaintance.

OK, fine, if that is someone's honest take on LHO, then that is their take. Many have said there was marital strife in the Oswald household, and LHO was not always a nice guy. 

But then there is this paragraph:

My next image was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen at Norman, Oklahoma, I immediately understood that Lee had done it, and why, and that he had done it alone.

This is a scholar? Gregory is gifted---he divined the truth of the JFKA while watching TV at home in Oklahoma on Nov. 22.

This makes about as much sense as someone saying, "I had worked with LHO at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall. We shared confidences. The next time I saw him was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen in Dallas, I immediately understood that Lee, financially and emotionally stressed, had been manipulated by others, duped and conned into a plot of some sort. "

Gregory's book is embarrassing. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But then there is this paragraph:

My next image was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen at Norman, Oklahoma, I immediately understood that Lee had done it, and why, and that he had done it alone.

This is a scholar? Gregory is gifted---he divined the truth of the JFKA while watching TV at home in Oklahoma on Nov. 22.

This makes about as much sense as someone saying, "I had worked with LHO at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall. We shared confidences. The next time I saw him was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen in Dallas, I immediately understood that Lee, financially and emotionally stressed, had been manipulated by others, duped and conned into a plot of some sort. "

Gregory's book is embarrassing. 

This is a preposterous analogy. Gregory was one of the few people in Dallas intimately familiar with both Oswalds, and the fact the he only knew them for a short period of time in no way diminishes his point of view. You also seem to be forgetting that his father also knew the Oswalds and was pressed into service as Marina's translator after the assassination. Why is it so hard to believe that a close acquaintance of Oswald's would have suspected him of the assassination based on their own personal experience in his company?

[Joe Bauer]

38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well...

The author, Paul R. Gregory, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, knew LHO for less than four months, and depicts an unhappy couple, and LHO as a disagreeable character. 

"From June through mid-September of 1962, I was the sole companion of Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald outside of Lee’s immediate family. I visited this young married couple often in the duplex where they settled after Lee’s return from his defection to the USSR."

LHO behaved poorly towards Marina, recounts Gregory, and Gregory soon left the couple's acquaintance.

OK, fine, if that is someone's honest take on LHO, then that is their take. Many have said there was marital strife in the Oswald household, and LHO was not always a nice guy. 

But then there is this paragraph:

My next image was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen at Norman, Oklahoma, I immediately understood that Lee had done it, and why, and that he had done it alone.

This is a scholar? Gregory is gifted---he divined the truth of the JFKA while watching TV at home in Oklahoma on Nov. 22.

This makes about as much sense as someone saying, "I had worked with LHO at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall. We shared confidences. The next time I saw him was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen in Dallas, I immediately understood that Lee, financially and emotionally stressed, had been manipulated by others, duped and conned into a plot of some sort. "

Gregory's book is embarrassing. 

I also have many contrary viewpoints regards Paul Gregory.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is a preposterous analogy. Gregory was one of the few people in Dallas intimately familiar with both Oswalds, and the fact the he only knew them for a short period of time in no way diminishes his point of view. You also seem to be forgetting that his father also knew the Oswalds and was pressed into service as Marina's translator after the assassination. Why is it so hard to believe that a close acquaintance of Oswald's would have suspected him of the assassination based on their own personal experience in his company?

Oh, come.

Gregory: My next image was November 22, 1963, as a bruised Lee was dragged into Dallas police headquarters to my shock and horror. Sitting in front of a TV screen at Norman, Oklahoma, I immediately understood that Lee had done it, and why, and that he had done it alone.

---30---

At that point, LHO had only been arrested! No trial yet. I am not sure even charges were filed yet (possibly in the Tippit case).

But Gregory, before even a trial, before even charges are filed against LHO, he knows what happened! Gregory has an oracle that knows alls, sees all!

Even more amazingly, even after LHO is rather suspiciously murdered, Gregory holds to the steadfast certainties he divined in those immediate moments during LHO's arrest. 

How on earth would Gregory know if LHO had confederates or not on 11/22? Or, was possibly framed as he made such a good patsy? The very things that made LHO suspicious are what made him frame-able. 

Gregory, I surmise, is not the circumspect sort. 

 

[Joe Bauer]

Gregory states in the latter part of his interview that Oswald's Russian language skills were not good. Yet, in the beginning part of his spiel he mentions his Siberia born father giving Oswald a "To Whom It May Concern" reference letter vouching for Oswald's Russian language skills after presumably listening to Oswald speak. ???

Gregory's father's native language was Russian. He gave free classes at the city library. 

If Oswald's Russian was as poor as Paul Gregory claimed they were, why would his father give Oswald such a reference letter?

Gregory says in the end of his interview that if he had more time he would want to research Jack Ruby more. Obviously Gregory thinks there is more to the "I did it for Jackie" Ruby killing Oswald story?

Gregory says he came to believe Oswald had "the soul of a killer."

Citing an adolescent Oswald pulling a knife on a relative when young Lee was living in New York City.

He also cites Oswald trying to do in Walker.

Gregory's psychoanalytic takes on Oswald sound very layman imo. I sense he has no academic education in that area at all.

Gregory mentions Oswald's escape attempt by boarding a bus as "laughably" low tech.

There just seems to be some noticeable missing Oswald background activity puzzle pieces missing in Gregory's presentation imo. Especially during Oswald's time in New Orleans.

Gregory hardly mentions Oswald's obvious connection to Guy Bannister and other nefarious characters in New Orleans. He says Oswald scurried off to New Orleans because he felt the heat was on in Dallas looking for Walker's shooter and he feared being ID'd for that.

One thing Gregory stated right off was something I have mentioned many times in my Marina Oswald postings.

Gregory mentions Marina's physical beauty upon first laying his eyes on her.

Obviously he was smitten by her and her brilliant glowing blue eyes. Gregory also described Marina as a poor "drowning cat" whom you wanted to rescue and protect.

He also describes an instance where he witnessed Marina falling backwards off some steps and hitting her back and head hard while holding Lee's baby girl Junie. He mentions Lee becoming furious at Marina for Junie's sake...and not even showing concern for Marina who Gregory worried could have suffered a serious concussion.

Gregory probably felt great disdain for Lee Oswald over that incident. I think Gregory felt protective over Marina and possibly even harbored some personal feelings of desirous attraction?

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Despite my contrary views on some points, the Gregory interview is thought provoking and very worthy of listening to imo.

Gregory mentions with disgust how a vulnerable and naive Marina was very quickly set upon ( even before she was released from Secret Service protection in the Six Flags hotel ) by self-interested others who wanted to cash in on her celebrity. Even the manager of the Six Flags hotel!

Gregory reveals again his protective thoughts about Marina.

He says before these people got a hold of Marina she was dressed in a style more akin to her Russian roots. Plain, even frumpy. No American style make up and hairdos.

When these predators ( Priscilla Johnson McMillan? ) got finished with their prize catch however, Marina was looking like a chic Hollywood fashion star!

As if this was a bad thing?

What young woman, poor Russian or not, wouldn't love to be Hollywood glamour style made up to give herself a self-esteem and especially heavy and dark worry relief lift from what Marina had been through for years with Lee?

And Marina had the basic inborn physical beauty goods already.

Figure, face, soft wide set large brilliant blue eyes, sexy quiet and reserved yet intelligent demeanor. Dress, make up and hair styling can only do so much. If you've got the complete basic beauty package already however, these can make you look like a star! 

Post Warren Commission Marina had the beauty goods to be on the cover of fashion magazines. She was that attractive. 

It was an interesting side story fact, how many people ( especially men ) mentioned Marina's striking physical beauty or prettiness from the minute they met her.

A full list would be fun to see.

Just off the top of my head...

Paul Gregory, David Lifton, Norman Mailer, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Hugh Aynesworth, Ruth Paine ( obvious even if unstated ) etc, etc.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

People on this board are already dismissing Paul Gregory because of his professional background, which is absurd. To my ears, this is a very compelling interview that provides a lot of insight into Oswald's personality, as well as his unsuitability for being part of any kind of plot or conspiracy with others.

I don't dismiss Gregory's book because of his professional background. I dismiss it because Gregory clearly has done little serious research into the JFK case and into the flimsy case against Oswald. He appears to have only read a handful of pro-WC books and no books that present the other side. He recites the standard and discredited "evidence" against Oswald and seems unaware of the strong evidence of Oswald's innocence and of his intelligence connections.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

48 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't dismiss Gregory's book because of his professional background. I dismiss it because Gregory clearly has done little serious research into the JFK case and into the flimsy case against Oswald. He appears to have only read a handful of pro-WC books and no books that present the other side. He recites the standard and discredited "evidence" against Oswald and seems unaware of the strong evidence of Oswald's innocence and of his intelligence connections.

 

If you’d have listened to the interview, you’d hear him say he is suspicious of Jack Ruby’s role in the assassination. The larger point is that people here are lamely dismissing Gregory out of hand while totally ignoring the unique perspective provided by his rare, close proximity to the Oswalds at a critical period. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

i have not read the book but the foregoing suggests to me someone trying to make sweeping conclusions using broad strokes based on limited information and likely influenced my his father's role. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

i have not read the book but the foregoing suggests to me someone trying to make sweeping conclusions using broad strokes based on limited information and likely influenced my his father's role. 

Someone who intimately knew the Oswalds  for an extended period of time in Dallas — in fact, one of the only people who did — is providing “limited information” ?

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Someone who intimately knew the Oswalds  for an extended period of time in Dallas — in fact, one of the only people who did — is providing “limited information” ?

The sad fact is that people's opinions on people they know (or knew) are always biased. As a result, I don't see Gregory's opinions regarding Oswald as having much merit. I mean, Marina and DeMohrenschildt knew Oswald much better than Gregory, and they ultimately believed he didn't kill JFK. 

It should be noted, moreover, that those knowing Oswald who assumed he was guilty (such as Gregory and Ruth Paine) had a thing for Marina. Coincidence? I think not. 

[Michael Griffith]

29 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Someone who intimately knew the Oswalds  for an extended period of time in Dallas — in fact, one of the only people who did — is providing “limited information” ?

"For an extended period of time"??? He only knew Oswald for four months. Another red flag about his story is that he says Oswald's Russian was not good. Leaving aside the question of how Gregory could have judged Oswald's Russian skills, other Russian speakers who knew Oswald said he spoke the language well. 

[Joe Bauer]

Imagine if you will Lee Harvey Oswald not gunned down 2 days after 11,22,1963.

He goes on trial.

If Paul Gregory's Oswald as guilty lone gunman findings and conclusion are true it would be easy for even a half-way competent prosecutor to convince a jury of Oswald guilt and that he acted alone.

No conspirators whatsoever.

Oswald gets the death sentence. Justice is done. Paul Gregory's truth prevails.

HOWEVER... Jack Ruby whacking Oswald right inside the DPD building less than 48 hours after Oswald allegedly shot JFK incredibly changed that proposed reality.

Oswald guilty as Gregory asserts or not, Jack Ruby took away the one and most major piece of evidence that could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald's JFK killing guilt or innocence ... himself.

America's great majority number suspicion of the official WC finding of Oswald as the lone gunman, as Gregory asserts, was born on 11,24,1963. Not on 11,22,1963.

It was watching strip joint owning Jack Ruby burst in front of Oswald and blasting his insides out and killing him on live national TV ( I saw this ) in front of 70 armed security personnel that forced tens of millions of Americans to trust their common sense gut instincts from that day on versus the official WC Oswald "Lone Nut" finding.

And their dismissing Jack Ruby and his killing of Oswald as nothing more than a mentally disturbed hot-headed boob doing his Jackie Kennedy grief saving thing.

These millions of live TV watchers "had" to feel great suspicion. 

Ruby's killing access to Oswald right inside an armed camp DPD building was more improbable than Oswald shooting JFK from a high floor building window!

Jack Ruby changed history almost as much as Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly did.

The truth of Oswald's guilt or innocence in the assassination of JFK will always be unprovable thanks to Mr. Jack ( Dallas cop deli sandwich providing buddy ) Ruby.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Joe Bauer